Re: mass bug filing on packages that are blocking use of cdebconf
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 22:13 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Just curious: why not, in that case, upload xpilot-ng as xpilot?
>
> If the new upstream is actually the better one, it makes sense for it
> to go on under the label of xpilot in my opinion.
I'm still holding out for the remote chance upstream might deliver on
their promise to release an XPilot 5, which would then offer some
features XPilot-ng doesn't. With that in mind, I included -ng in all
filepaths and the package names so they won't conflict.
While it is still possible they might release xpilot++ (the working name
for XPilot 5, since they've translated it to C++) which would then
become the next version of the current xpilot package, so long as 4.5.5
remains in the current state of disrepair, I feel it is better to have
users upgrade to xpilot-ng.
Ben
Reply to: